Runebound at the Monkey Den

The Monkeys are generally an RPG group, but on occasion, we break out a board game. Last night, for instance. Only three of us could show up, and since that's not enough for a Pathfinder Society scenario, we broke out Runebound for the first time.

Runbound is quite likely my favorite board game -- but until last night, I'd only ever played it solo (using the "threat level" variant). I find it to be an exceptional solitaire experience, and I've played it literally a couple dozen times. I'd always wanted to play it multi-player, but I was a little worried how the experience would translate. It turns out, I found it very different with a couple of other guys at the table. And, to be honest, I think Runebound may actually work better as a solo game than multi-player, even though it wasn't specifically designed to be played solitaire. The sense of the building narrative is what I like so much about the game, and that specific facet of play is seriously undermined with other players.

I'm sure my opinion there is tinged by the fact that I got whomped. I was playing Ronan -- as usual, I zero-in on the ranger-archetype character. And (again) as usual, I got off to an extremely slow start with him. Meanwhile Red Scorpion (Joe B., in his first ever game) and Varikas (Joe F., who had played a few times before) were zipping around the board and making mincemeat of yellow and blue encounters while I was still plugging away on greens. What the hell even is mincemeat, anyway? And why do I always start slow with Ronan?

Anyway, despite the fact that we were playing pretty briskly (especially since it was our first time as a group), the hour was getting late so we decided that the first player to defeat any red encounter would be declared the Winner and Lord Sovereign of All He Could Survey. That ended up being Varikas, so, hooray or whatever for Joe F.

The game seemed to go over pretty well. I'm hoping it hits the table at the Den again soon.

Progress! (In which I paint tanks)

Over the weekend, I finally managed to muster up the motivation to pick up a paintbrush.

I mentioned previously that I had five Soviet T-34s (for Flames of War) on my desk. I bought these guys months ago, and got them assembled and primed fairly quickly. Somehow, though, they had seemingly permanently entered "work in progress" status. Friday evening, I resolved to make some serious progress on them over the weekend.

Luckily, circumstances allowed me significant blocks of time to work on them both days. The painting went fairly quickly, somewhat to my surprise. I used a new brush to lay on the base coat, an Army Painter large drybrush, and I was very happy with it. Not the tool's intended purpose, I guess, but at my level of painting, whatever works works. Anyway, the combination of the brush's wide tip and the excellent coverage of the Vallejo paint I use really knocked out the base coating in what felt like record time.

After that, it was just a matter of a quick wash applied to selected areas for shading, and a couple rounds of dry brushing for highlights. Really, really simple stuff. As always, I am not aiming for "contest" or "showcase" quality, but rather "I am not embarrassed to deploy these" quality. I feel that I got there with these guys.

Everything was dry enough by Sunday evening for the decals. I do not like the new decal sheet included in Battlefront's new T-34 box. The only slogan graffiti on the sheet is in red script. On all their other Soviet decal sheets that I have seen, it's in white, and the text is much blockier/bulkier. I was very concerned about how the red decal was going to look against the dark green of the tank itself, so I only used one of the new slogans. As it turns out, I was right -- it looks pretty terrible. The script is way too thin and dark. Luckily, I had plenty of decals left over from earlier tank boxes, and the blocky white slogans I used turned out pretty well, I think.

After letting the decals dry overnight, I hit the tanks with a pretty heavy dose of Dullcote. Luckily it was pretty (gorgeous, actually) outside Monday, so I had no worries about temperature or humidity or anything. Here are the final products:

And, that was pretty much that. To my amazement, I didn't just make "serious progress," as was my stated goal, I got the things finished over the weekend.

[OK, maybe not 100% finished -- you may have noticed from the picture that they don't have their bow machine guns mounted. When I assembled these guys, I decided I'd magnetize those, in case I ever wanted to field them as flame tanks (the OT-34 had a flamethrower in place of the bow machine gun). That was maybe not the smartest thing I've ever done, as those MGs are tiny. Nonetheless, I've got three of them done and should get the other two tonight. So, I'm practically 100% finished with these.]

So, that was cool. Maybe I've turned over a new leaf! Maybe some of that momentum will carry over into my next project (I'm thinking Germans). And, maybe it was a one-time aberration. We'll see. In any event, I now have a completed, full-strength Soviet medium tank battalion (21 tanks!), and I'm pretty proud of them.

Anyway, some final thoughts about the miniatures themselves: It's too bad about the decals, because over all, the newer T-34 models are excellent. The fuel tanks are now molded on to the hull, instead of cast as separate pieces. There are bits of stowage -- tarps, packs, the ubiquitous Russian "tank log," that kind of thing -- sculpted on to the hulls and turrets now. All five hulls and all five turrets are different sculpts, with different arrangements of fuel tanks and stowage details. I think that's an excellent touch, and I'm glad Battlefront went that direction. The overall casting is pretty crisp and clean too, owing no doubt to the newness of the molds. I'm happy with the product, and especially happy to have them done.

More BGG math trade stuff

In a hope-renewing display of international cooperation, the postal services of the United States and Canadia worked together to take for-freaking-ever to deliver me my last installment of games from the last BGG math trade I participated in. I finally got the box last week, though, and finally sat down to check them out over the last couple of days.

For this lot, I traded away an unopened copy of Strike South, one of the Second World War at Sea series of games by Avalanche Press. I still have three other SWWaS games on the shelf (Bomb Alley, Midway, Eastern Fleets). I like the system well enough, but Strike South's specific subject matter never really grabbed me, I guess. I picked it up as part of a bundle, and I'd had it up for trade for quite a while. In return, I got a copy of one of the introductory Advanced Tobruk System ("ATS") games, 101st Screaming Eagles (by Critical Hit), and Red Parachutes (also, coincidentally, by Avalanche).

Red Parachutes was published in the mid-90's and is an unapologetically old-school hex-and-counter-fest. It is a big ole game, with just under 1,000 counters. Honestly, the chances of me ever setting this thing up, let alone actually playing it, are pretty close to nil. If I had infinite time, that'd be one thing, but I don't. So I just don't see how this ever makes it to the top of the priority list. I'll probably put this one back up for trade.

I traded for this lot, though, because of the other game I got, the ATS intro. I've had my eye on that system for a while, and I'm happy to finally have one of the games. Any tactical-level WW2 game (miniatures or otherwise) is automatically going to get a second look from me. I've made peace with the fact that I'm never going to get into the genre's granddaddy, Advanced Squad Leader. I've read a lot about ASL, and I've come to the conclusion that it's just ... too much. No knock on the system itself or its adherents; I'm just pretty sure it's not for me. ATS has always looked like an intriguing alternative, though, with a lot of the meat and depth of ASL -- but a fraction of the overhead.

The Screaming Eagles game comes with a rules folder for the "Basic Game," which is an abbreviated subset of the full-on ATS rules. There's a reference card with the handful of tables used in the basic game, four scenarios (printed separately on two cards), an 11" x 17" map, and way more counters than you actually need to play any of the included scenarios. The production quality is adequate, but nothing to shout about. The counters are on nice stock and are pretty utilitarian, but they do have a little bit of color to them. They also have drawings of men, guns, whatever, instead of just NATO symbols. That's a big plus in my book.

The rules are just four pages long -- albeit, four pages that are dense with a very small font. Still, there's not that much there, and it's not too hard to get through them. They strike me as generally fairly well written, but I definitely think there are a couple of passages that could have been more clearly worded. Anyway, I've read through them at least a couple of times now, and I don't believe there's anything in there too difficult to grasp, or particularly groundbreaking for a gamer with a bit of experience. Play is broken down into movement, firing, and close assault phases ("segments" here), units have movement points, troops taking casualties must make morale checks, etc., etc. I'd say overall, it feels like pretty comfortable and familiar ground.

One thing I definitely like about the system right off the bat is its abandonment of the IGO-UGO model. Players alternate activating individual units or stacks, which generally may only move or shoot in a turn. A game turn continues until both players have activated all of their units (that they want to). So, every unit has the potential to act every turn, but, again, generally they can only move or shoot, not both.

I also like the opportunity fire rules. Basically, every time a unit spends a movement point (either by actually moving or just pivoting, in the case of vehicles), any enemy within LoS may shoot at it, if the firing unit hasn't already been activated during the present turn. Taking an opportunity shot counts as the firing unit's activation for the turn, so it is by no means a "free" shot. There's certainly nothing particularly innovative about this system, but I do like the way the rules seem to strike a balance of making moving in the open a highly risky proposition while not turning opportunity fire into a completely game-dominating mechanism.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with this trade, and I'm anxious to set up ATS for a solitaire session or two.

No Monkey

For the second week in a row, the Thursday night Monkey Den session was cancelled. Our GM has The Plague. Or something?

Anyway, last night was supposed to be a Mutants & Masterminds game. I think we've hit the time of year, though, where sessions generally are going to be pretty hit or miss, owing to weather, illness, what-have-you.

On the other hand, we haven't managed to play a single time since I started this blog. Co-inky-dink? Hmmmm.

Arcane Legions: first impressions (part 2)

Last time, I talked about my decision to buy the new Arcane Legions game and my initial impressions of the miniatures included in the starter box. With this entry, I'll wrap up my initial thoughts regarding the game itself.

The Rule Book

The Arcane Legions website describes the game's rules as being "easy" and "clear-cut." I think those terms are justified. The complexity of the game is definitely on the lower end of the spectrum for miniatures games. And note well: I'm using the word "complexity" here strictly in the sense of "How complicated are the rules? How difficult are the concepts to grasp, retain, and apply on the gaming table?" and not in the sense of "How deep is the game play?" Also note, for me, saying that a game is not very complex is a value-neutral judgment. I do not see low complexity as a praiseworthy characteristic in itself -- I'm perfectly happy to play a moderately or highly complex game, if it's a good game.

The game's rule book is 32 pages long. The first seven pages are devoted to background material describing the game world ("fluff"). The last five contain variant scenario setups, a very brief FAQ, and a glossary. That leaves 20 pages of actual rules content. Those 20 pages include a fair number of diagrams. The bottom line is there's not that much actual rules text -- you can pretty easily read it in its entirety in a single sitting.

There aren't any particularly difficult concepts in the rules. To be sure, there are some passages that I had to give a couple of close readings in order to get clear in my head -- but I'm chalking that up to the fact that the game introduces some concepts that are completely new to me, rather than any inherent difficulty in the actual rules themselves. Without a doubt, the thing I had the hardest time grasping was the method for calculating the movement cost for turning. Again, it's not because turning is inherently difficult to do or complicated to understand. It seems as simple as can be to me now, but it took some puzzling on my part when I first went over that section to get it straight.

Though generally clear, the rules certainly aren't perfect. There were a couple of instances where the phrasing of the rules immediately raised what I consider to be obvious questions. Consider the following passage (from page 18) regarding the procedure for moving a unit straight ahead:

Simply slide the unit forward until the leading edge of the moving unit lines up with the edge of the measurement base. This should move your unit one step . . .

OK, fine. But what if I don't want to move one full step? Can I do that? Not by the letter of the rules. The rules flatly say that you move the unit until its leading edge has moved a full step. If I stop short, I have not done that and thus violated that rule as written. But (as I remember thinking, upon my first reading of that section) that can't possibly be the intent there, can it? And indeed, it is not, as disclosed by the online FAQ. So, good job on the FAQ, but still, that was an obvious point that should have been addressed directly in the rules themselves.

The preceding paragraph notwithstanding, however, the rule book is mostly fine. It deserves special praise for avoiding a particular pitfall that seems all too common in miniatures rulesets: it doesn't mix fluffy digressions and "witty" commentary in with the actual rules. I hate it when books do that (I'm looking at you now, Flames of War). The rules should be the rules, and that's it. AL gets it exactly right on that score.

The Play's the Thing

OK, on to the gameplay itself. Certainly, the thing that most sets AL apart from other games with which I'm familiar is the way it defines and handles its basic units. In other games, the basic unit is the individual miniature. That is to say, whether a mini represents a tank, a single lizardman, a small group of soldiers, whatever, each miniature is a discrete entity with its own set of game characteristics. This stand of infantry might get a lot of shots per turn because they're armed with machine guns rather than basic rifles. That big lizardman hits much harder than that smaller lizardman. Whatever the case may be, differences in performance arise out of the fact that individual miniatures have their own inherent characteristics. Certainly, in some cases, game systems require groups of individual miniatures to act collectively -- for example, large blocks of infantry figures might be required to move and fight together in relatively rigid formations. But even in such cases, the characteristics of the collective unit are ultimately determined by the characteristics of its individual constituents. So, for instance, when you charge your block of soldiers into an enemy block, the number of attacks you get might be determined by adding up the attacks of the individual figures who get to fight.

It's fair to say that Arcane Legions completely abandons that conventional model. In AL, far from being the basic unit of the game, the individual miniature is almost completely irrelevant -- except in so far as it functions as a kind of record-keeping device. AL's basic unit (literally called a "unit" in the game's terms) is the collective group. An individual miniature has no inherent characteristics of its own. A unit's characteristics at any particular time are determined by the specific formation occupied by its constituent miniatures.

Each unit in the game is physically formed from three components. First is the base, a plastic movement tray, essentially. Bases come in two sizes, 80 mm squares and 80 mm x 160 mm rectangles (80 mm is ~ 3 1/8"). The bases have a grid of round slots to accommodate the pegs on the bottom of the miniatures. Next is the unit card, printed on glossy card stock. The unit card has holes punched in it, so when you lay it on top of the base, it covers most of the base's slots, but leaves some open. Also, all of the unit's characteristics are printed directly on the card. Finally, the miniatures themselves come into play. The minis get slotted into the holes left open by the unit cards. A key point, however, is the fact that there are always more holes than there are miniatures to fill them. A combination of a base, a unit card, and miniatures equals a unit.

Here's where the really innovative (to me, at least) part comes in: each miniature in the unit contributes to the unit's overall characteristics, based upon which specific slot on the unit card the miniature occupies -- not based upon anything about the miniature itself. So, a legionnaire in one slot might give the unit two attack dice, while an identical legionnaire in another slot might instead contribute one defense die and a movement point, for example. And, by giving the unit a "regroup" order, you can reconfigure minis on the base/card and thereby change -- sometimes radically change -- the unit's overall characteristics. Damage against a unit is represented by removing miniatures from the base, one peg per damage point (some minis have more than one peg). Damage thus degrades the unit's effectiveness, since empty slots contribute nothing.

Now I have to say, I find this mechanism remarkably appealing. The question of how to best configure your troops, as battlefield conditions change, adds an entire layer of tactical decision making to the game. Similarly, deciding exactly which minis to remove as casualties -- and hence, exactly which unit stats to give up -- adds something that just isn't present in other games that I know.

The decision to focus on units rather than individual figures also has a number of notable effects on gameplay, generally simplifying various game processes. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Line of Sight rules. LoS can be a very difficult issue, and some games' approach to it is downright absurd (I'm looking at you now, 40K). But, in AL, you never have to worry about exactly which of your guys can see exactly which of his guys, because the individual figures simply don't matter. You always judge LoS from one unit to another. There are even notches on each side of the base that define exactly what point you measure from and to. I honestly don't see how you could make LoS any simpler or easier to apply (unless, of course, you simply take LoS out of the game and declare that everything can always see everything else, as in Monsterpocalypse).

Similarly, movement is pretty easy, because you measure and move the entire base, with the individual figures' positions being, again, irrelevant. (Rearranging the figures on the base, or "regrouping," as mentioned above, is conceptually entirely distinct from actual movement -- except in that regrouping can be used to alter a unit's facing direction.)

Combat is simple, and it looks like the system will tend toward fairly high lethality. Close combat occurs between enemy units that are in direct contact with each other, while ranged combat (generally) can be conducted against targets within three rectangular base lengths. Both the attacker and defender roll six-sided dice. The number of dice each side rolls is, as described above, determined by the arrangement of the figures on the unit cards involved. Each side arranges its dice from highest to lowest result and then compares them -- e.g., my highest result vs. your highest, then my second highest vs. your second highest, etc. Ties do no damage to either side, but all non-ties inflict one point of damage against the side with the lower die roll (exception: defenders against ranged attacks can't inflict damage against the attacker). If one side gets to roll more dice than the other (as usually will be the case), the excess dice are compared to "ghost" dice, which are presumed to have a value of 2 but cannot themselves cause hits (i.e, a roll of 1 set against a "ghost" die is a "no damage" result). There aren't very many combat modifiers, but those that do exist all function by adding to or subtracting from the number of dice rolled, never by modifying a die's result (unless there is some funky special ability floating around out there that I don't know about).

All in all, combat feels pretty risky. (See what I did there?)

There is only a single "round" of combat in each turn. If neither side is destroyed in the dice-off described above, the units involved simply remain in place. Note that there are no combat effects or results beyond removing miniatures from units as damage accrues -- there are no "morale checks" (more on that shortly), units can't be forced to disengage, nothing like that.

The terrain rules are also very simple. There are only two types of terrain in the base rules. "Blocking" terrain blocks LoS and thus prevents ranged combat, while "hindering" terrain allows ranged combat but imposes a penalty on the attacker. Both types completely prevent movement through them. The base rules simply contain no provision for other common terrain concepts that miniature gamers might expect to see. For example, there is no "rough" terrain that hinders (but does not prevent) movement and has no effect on LoS, nor any provision for something like water features that might prevent movement but also not affect LoS. Obviously, such things would be easy to "house rule" in, or they might be included in specific scenario descriptions, but they aren't covered by the base rules.

The turn structure is much more fluid than a typical IGO-UGO, movement phase/shooting phase/assault phase setup. Each side gets a number of "order points" (8 per turn in a standard game). These points are spent by giving individual units specific orders. Pretty much nothing in the game happens automatically -- you have to give your units orders before they will do anything. (As an example, as I described above, it's possible for you to begin a turn with one of your units in direct contact with an enemy. No combat will occur there, however, until you give that unit a "close combat" order.) The five orders are move, close combat, ranged combat, regroup (mentioned a couple of times previously) and use special ability (which not all units have). Giving one unit one order costs one point, except that combat and movement orders cost two points for units with large bases. Within the limits of the number of order points you have available, on your turn you can give any unit any combination of orders in any sequence -- there are no "phases" within a turn. The only restriction is that a unit takes one point of damage if you "push" it by giving it the same order twice in one turn, and you can't "push" a unit more than once in a turn (and you can't push to give a second special order). Thus, you could have a unit make two close attacks in one turn, but you'll pay a price for doing so. You can spend all your points on one unit, or spread them around your army.

I quite like this system, with some reservations. I like the tactical flexibility it brings to the table. Again, here is a game feature that adds an entire layer of decision making as compared to the conventional model where you get to move, shoot, and assault with every figure every turn. On the other hand, I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that your order points are fixed throughout the course of the game. As the game progresses, and you lose units, you do not lose order points proportionately. As you get down to your last handful of units on the table, those guys will all of a sudden get super peppy. I'm even more concerned that this model might tend to unbalance the game in favor of spending your build points on fielding fewer, more powerful units (the kind that, I bet, happen -- purely coincidentally I'm sure! -- to come in the blind-buy boosters). After all, if it costs the same amount of points to give an order to your Super Stompy Unit of Death as it does to give the order to your Just Plain Guys, you're getting more bang by fielding more SSUDs and a lot fewer JPGs. Just speculation at this point, I hasten to add. There may well be other factors that counterbalance this tendency. Time will tell.

A final comment on the game rules. Except, possibly, for some units' special abilities, the concept of "morale" (or, indeed, any type of "psychology," as it's referred to in some systems) is completely absent. Within the restrictions of the order point system described above, your units will always do exactly what you tell them to. They will always fight to the last man. They will always ignore the closer target to shoot at a more distant one (if that's what you want). They will never involuntarily fall back or rout in the face of overwhelming casualties. They will never become "pinned down" in any way.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. I think, frankly, that morale is handled in entirely too heavy-handed a way in some games. I'll pick on Flames of War (one of my favorites, actually) again and use it as an example. Morale checks can absolutely dominate that game. While that may or may not be realistic, it certainly isn't fun for either side when that happens. So I'm entirely open to the idea of de-emphasizing morale, at least as a game-dominating factor. But to eliminate it entirely...? I don't know. That's probably going too far, frankly, at least for my tastes.

In conclusion, my initial take on the rules are that they are indeed "easy" and (mostly) "clear-cut." The heart of the game is the way units work, which I find both innovative and extremely compelling. The unit system also appears to greatly simplify various game processes. I also like (with some reservations) the order point system. The game is overall quite simple -- which is fine, in itself -- but I'm afraid the designers may have gone too far in that direction in some regards (e.g., the absence of morale rules).

So: What About Value?

Early on, I made much of the low cost of the starter box as being an important factor in my decision to buy the game. But low cost is no virtue if the product is also low value. So, how does Arcane Legions stack up on that front?

Let's look at the starter armies you get. The rules define a "standard" game as having 7,000 points (per side) worth of forces. The starter comes with 40 miniatures, arranged into four units, for each of the three factions. Here's how their point totals break down:

• Roman: 850 + 850 + 700 + 550 = 2,950 total points
• Egyptian: 700 + 650 + 650 + 550 = 2,550 total points
• Han: 750 + 500 + 250 + 250 = 1,750 total points

In other words, the starter armies range from 25% to about 42% of a "standard" army.

The first thing that leaps out about those numbers is: wow, that's a large disparity between the Romans and the Han. I was under the impression that the whole point of including each of the factions in the starter was to allow for play of a two-player game right out of the box. You certainly can't do that by just setting up all your guys and having at it, at least if the Han are one of the sides. Even if the Romans left one of their strongest units off the table, they'd still be 350 points (20% !) ahead of the Han. That strikes me as a very strange packaging decision. I don't think the three sides should have been carbon copies of each other, but surely they could have done a better job than that at balancing the forces in the starter.

On the other hand, if you're looking at focusing on Romans (as I am, completely coincidentally), the starter puts you in pretty good shape. Getting 42% of a standard army right off the bat is a pretty good deal, in my opinion.

The bottom line is that you get a large number of adequate, but unspectacular and smallish, minis, some necessary accessories, and a rule book for your $35. You do not get three evenly balanced forces. You also get only a quarter of a standard army if you're going Han. In the end, I'd call this a fair-to-good value. I'm not regretting my purchase, but on the other hand, I don't think it was the incredible deal I thought it was when I decided to buy.

First Impressions / Final Verdict

Here's a quick summary of my first impressions of all the categories I've discussed:

• Miniature quality (sculpts): adequate
• Pre-painted mini paint jobs: poor
• Rule book (clarity/layout/etc.): good
• Rules themselves: simple, with a couple of compelling innovations

Given all of the foregoing, I feel quite confident that I will spend at least a little more money on this one. I intend to buy (again, at least) some Roman cavalry (unpainted commons) and a booster or two to see if maybe the quality of those prepaints is any better than the ones included in the starter.

I really want to get this one on the table to see if it is as fun to play as it looks like it could be. There's every chance that the gameplay could be good enough to make all of my quibbles fade into Bolivian, as Mike Tyson would say.

My final recommendation (take this with a grain of salt because, again, I haven't played it yet): There is a lot of potential in the rules. That, coupled with the physical contents of the box, justifies a purchase, given the starter's low price. If you're looking for a low-complexity miniatures game, or you're a veteran minis gamer looking for something new and different, I say give this one a shot!

Arcane Legions: first impressions (part 1)

Arcane Legions was released last week, and I picked up a starter box Saturday. I was desperate for a new project, I guess. I haven't played a game yet, but I have spent a fair amount of time going over the rules and prepping the minis. Since I haven't actually played it, I don't feel comfortable calling this a "review," so lets just call it a "summary of my initial impressions" instead.

[This got a little long, so I'm breaking it into two parts. This first part will discuss my decision to buy the game, and my thoughts on the quality of the miniatures included in the starter box. Tomorrow (hopefully!), I'll post my initial impression of the rules.]

You want how much for that?

The first thing that bears mentioning is the fact that, as far as I can recall, this is the only time I've ever bought into a game largely because of its price point.

I keep fairly regular tabs on the hobby, so this one was on my radar screen for quite a while before its release. I knew a good bit about most of the salient details -- i.e., the innovative way that the figures' positions on the movement tray define a unit's abilities, the semi-collectible purchasing model, the mix of pre-painted and unpainted figures -- and to be perfectly honest, this game seemed like a very unlikely candidate for a first-week-of-release purchase. Not that I was put off by it; it's just that nothing about it screamed "must have." Rather, it fit quite squarely into my "sounds neat, let's see how it turns out" category.

But, a few weeks or so ago, I read about the price/contents of the starter box. This thing includes 120 figures (40 for each of the game's initial factions) and their corresponding unit cards and movement trays, and retails for $35. Three starter armies for the same price as a box of 10 space marines? Each starter faction for about the same prorated cost as one Flames of War tank? 120 miniatures for $10 more than a Monsterpocalypse starter (six minis total)? Yes please.

I concluded that I couldn't pass it up at that price. A starter pretty much has to be worth $35, right? So, off to my FLGS I scuttled.

So, what do we have here? More little dudes.

Of course, if the game sucks, if the miniatures suck, it could have been free and I still would have been burned, right? So let's take a look at what we've got.

There are two things that immediately leapt out at me about the miniatures. The first is visual and related to a figure's most obvious attribute: its size. The minis are billed as "25 mm" in scale, and that seems about right. I have measured a basic Roman legionnaire as standing about 26 mm tall (counting neither the thickness of the base nor the point on top of the helmet). Thus, they tower appropriately over my 15 mm FoW soldiers, but are in turn pretty much dwarfed by human-sized figures from lines like Warmachine, AT-43, or D&D minis. [So, I have to say, if you were thinking of picking up an army pack of these guys to use as cheap soldiers for your D&D campaign: probably not going to work that well.]

It is not, however, the figures' height that one is initially struck by, but rather their overall bulk (or lack thereof, I guess). These things are not sculpted to the "heroic" proportions that most miniatures gamers are accustomed to. Put one of these guys next to, say, a Warhammer human figure, and the AL guy is going to look positively waif-like in comparison, even after allowing for the difference in scale.

I don't mean that as a complaint, I hasten to add. In fact, I quite like the proportions of the AL figures. I'm certainly no anatomy/art expert, but these guys have to be more realistically proportioned than most other fantasy miniatures. Overall, I find the "stage presence" of a group of legionnaires on a unit base to be entirely acceptable -- even pleasing.

The second thing I immediately noticed about the figures concerns the plastic used in casting them. They are not made out of the same kind of hard plastic that, say, Games Workshop uses for its miniatures. It's much softer stuff, reminiscent of the material Fantasy Flight uses in games like Runebound or War of the Ring, or that Wizards uses for the pre-painted D&D minis. If those comparisons don't ring a bell for you, think about the plastic used for toy army men, and you'll at least be in the ballpark.

The use of the softer plastic carries a couple of obvious consequences. First, because the stuff is pliable rather than rigid and brittle, you're inevitably going to run into the "bendy spears" issue. Anyone who's ever seen a mini made out of this type of plastic is going to know what I'm talking about. The good news is that the packaging of the product (e.g., sprue layout and the use of protective plastic "shells" around some of the more delicate pieces) seems to have minimized the issue. It's surprising, really, given the delicacy of some of the sculpts, that the issue isn't a lot worse. My copy of War of the Ring had a much bigger problem. But the bad news is that, hey, it's still soft plastic, some of the weapons are still bent, and it's still going to take some time and attention to fix.

The second issue arising out of the use of a soft plastic is one that will probably be a larger concern to many "serious" hobbyists. The stuff simply doesn't seem to hold anywhere near the same sharpness of detail one would expect in, say, a GW mini (to invoke the hobby's 500-lb. gorilla once again). I don't ever recall seeing a soft plastic mini that looked nearly as good as a high-end hard plastic figure ... and these are no exceptions. The castings certainly have visible, identifiable details. One can clearly discern, for example, folds in cloth, segments in armor, and the fact that the undead torsos are skeletal. All of these details are relatively quite shallow, however. Bottom line: the figures aren't blobs of plastic, but they certainly aren't going to take your breath away either.

One aside that I guess I should mention at this point, since it is closely related to the prominence of the details on the minis, is the fact that I think it would be a nightmare for me to try to give these guys full-fledged conventional paint jobs. I've mentioned before that I'm a mediocre painter at best (seriously, on my best day a mediocre result is pure win). I need sharp details to have any hope of not ending up with a muddled mess. These guys just don't have them. Add to that the relatively small size and (especially) the relatively slight proportions -- seriously, their faces are just tiny -- and there's simply no way I'm even going to attempt it. I'm considering going with a "spray 'n' dip" process, but "bare plastic" is also totally in play as an option. We'll see.

Back to the figures themselves. Upon first seeing the sprues, one is immediately struck by the fact that these guys are only mostly unpainted. Two of the three factions (Romans and Egyptians) include "painted" shields. I use the quotation marks there because I don't know what the actual process entails; the publisher refers to it as "deco printing." In any event, the shields, which are separate pieces but on the same sprues as the figures, are colored appropriately for their factions, and have contrasting insignia. (For example, the Romans have red shields with gold emblems.) The designs are very sharp; they are clearly not hand painted. I like these a lot. They're probably the coolest feature of the starter minis -- which makes it pretty rough if you were planning on focusing on the third faction, the Han. They get no color at all in their starter figures.

Most of the figures are cast as single pieces (including their bases), or single pieces with shields. Some -- the Han especially -- have separate weapon arms. None are at all difficult to assemble. Most of the poses are pretty static, but there are some "action shots."

One final note on the quality of the figures: the castings are very clean. None of my sprues had any flash worth mentioning. The mold lines (aka the bane of my existence) are very minor. So, a big thumbs up on that score.

But...I thought some of these guys were pre-painted?

Yes. Yes they are. And I wanted to break that out into a separate section.

As I understand it, the game's marketing/packaging model works like this: the "common" figures are unpainted (or "deco printed," whatever), and are available for purchase in "non-blind" packaging (e.g., as "army packs" or the starter box itself). In other words, when you buy commons, you know exactly what you are getting. Earlier, though, I referred to the game as being "semi-collectible." It's with the booster packs where that kicks in.

The boosters, containing "uncommon" and "rare" figures, are packaged in a "semi-blind" format. When you buy a booster, you do know what faction you are buying, but you do not know exactly what figures it will contain.

Now is not the time or place for a lengthy discussion of the merits of the collectible game model in general. I know it engenders remarkably strong opinions among some gamers. I myself have a few strong feelings about it as well. But, however you feel about collectibility, it seems pretty much inarguable that this kind of "semi-blind" packaging is far more palatable than the fully blind model that most other collectible games feature. And while I may not love it, at least it's not enough to put me off the game entirely, at least at this point. And that's all I'll say about that right at the moment.

Anyway, back to my main topic, which is still the quality of the game's miniatures.

I've mentioned repeatedly that the starter box comes with 120 minis. That's not exactly right. It has 120 unpainted commons. It also includes three pre-painted minis (one for each faction) as sort of a sampler for what you get in the boosters.

I'm not going to try to soft pedal this: they aren't very good. I don't mean that as in "compared to Golden Daemon," or "compared to an experienced hobbyist," I mean it as in "I probably would have preferred bare plastic here." They aren't hideous I guess -- the colors are at least applied neatly -- but I do honestly feel that the publisher would have been better off to have simply cast these guys in a different color of plastic or something and omitted the paint job entirely.

But, paint them they did. The paint jobs consist of a base coat (five or six colors per mini) blocked on -- reasonably neatly, as I said above -- with no shading or highlighting. Aside from dots for the eyes (and really, you couldn't do much more there), eyebrows on one figure, and a shield emblem on another, there is no detailing. The color choices are reasonable, except for the Egyptian figure which, in my opinion, looks pretty bad all the way around.

I don't think I can recall seeing any pre-painted minis that unequivocally look worse than these three guys. They are no better, to my eyes, than the weakest of the D&D minis I've seen. They are not in the same ballpark as AT-43 stuff, to compare them to a higher end pre-painted line.

To be fair, it must be added that these are also the smallest pre-paints I've seen. An AT-43 trooper is gigantic compared to one of these guys. And, I described before how difficult I thought they'd be to paint. Finally, given the price point that I belabored so much earlier, there's no reasonable way they could have afforded to chunk a ton of production time into these paint jobs. Considering all of that, I really don't see how these could have turned out much better (a wash seems like it could have been feasible and would have helped some).

As an aside, I note that I don't see a single word on the official website touting the quality of the paint jobs. Maybe it's there and I'm just overlooking it, but I just went and checked after reviewing that preceding paragraph, and I can't find a single word. Good bit on game play, pictures of all the units ... not a word puffing the paint quality. Is that an acknowledgment that it's not a selling point? Why even do it then?

Anyway, I think this is kind of a problem. These are supposed to be the special guys, and they look worse than the unpainted rank and file. I don't know what to say to that beyond "yikes." I don't care how good the game turns out to be, if this is an accurate example of what to expect from the booster packs, I really don't know how I can justify buying many of them. So I'm a little concerned about that. I'm hoping that the actual booster pack figures will look a little better, since they will be produced in smaller quantities (one assumes).

As I've said repeatedly, these are my first impressions. Maybe after I've seen them at tabletop distances, my opinion will mellow.

That's all I have for now on miniature quality. Tune in tomorrow for my thoughts on the rules.

Thoughts on Pathfinder

Thursday is game night at the Monkey Den, as my friend Joe's house is affectionately known. Unfortunately, we had to cancel last night. It was going to be our third Pathfinder Society session under the new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game ("PRG") rules. Since I've got Pathfinder fresh on my mind, I thought I'd jot down a few observations about the new game.

Just a quick recap, for anyone reading this who's not familiar with Pathfinder's genealogy. In the beginning, there was Dungeons & Dragons, and it was good. But it wasn't perfect! In fact, over the years, it went through a number of variations and editions. When I got back into the game a couple of years ago (after a long hiatus), the current version of the game was called "3.5" -- i.e., it was different from the 3rd edition, but apparently not different enough to be considered its own new edition. Whatever.

Anyway, last year, D&D's publisher (now Wizards of the Coast) put out an entirely new edition. This event went largely unnoticed by the internet. You will have to dig long and hard to find any online commentary regarding D&D's new (4th) edition. Particularly rare are any expressions of opinion regarding the relative merits of 3.5 and 4th. Should you stumble across a blog or message board posting actually expressing a preference for one over the other, know that you are beholding the most delicate of fancies. When you have caught your breath, count yourself blessed.

From what fragmentary information I have been able to piece together, however, apparently some D&D players are less than enthralled by 4th. In my own opinion, the new edition has a radically different "feel" from any previous version of the game. Without a doubt, it does some things right. But, in most areas where it differs from 3.5 (and there are a lot of them), I prefer 3.5, plain and simple.

Bottom line: not a fan of 4th.

But, all is not lost for people like me. Enter Paizo Publishing. Paizo has a long and illustrious history of publishing products for/relating to D&D. This past August, they released their alternative to 4th edition, the aforementioned Pathfinder RPG. Unlike the approach that Wizards took with 4th, Pathfinder extended and polished the existing 3.5 framework. As a result, Pathfinder now feels (to me!) infinitely more like D&D than the current "official" version of D&D does. I've heard Pathfinder referred to as "3.75," and I think that's perfectly apt.

Back to my gaming group: We'd been playing 3.5 for a while when 4th came out. We briefly gave 4th a whirl, and the experience frankly fell pretty flat for us. I'm not saying it bombed; nobody was hospitalized or anything, it just didn't work out. So, we enthusiastically embraced Pathfinder when it was released.

My initial reaction to the game is extremely positive. Mechanically, the game is very similar to 3.5. I've made it clear that I was a big fan of 3.5, so obviously, I mean that previous statement as praise. It seems to me right now that the biggest changes are in the character class descriptions. As a general observation, they seem to have fixed some of the problems that some classes had in 3.5, without completely changing the feel of playing those classes. Many of the classes are "jazzed up" a bit too. I think that's a good thing.

Just to throw out one specific example of a case where Pathfinder made a simple change that amounted to a big improvement: In 3.5, one of the features of the druid class was the "animal companion" -- a pet/body guard that got more powerful as the druid gained levels. Rangers got animal companions too -- but, their companions improved at exactly half the rate of druids' companions (i.e., a ranger's "effective druid level," used for determining the strength of the animal companion, was defined has half his ranger level).

This, in a word, sucked.

I get that you don't want a ranger's animal companion to be as good as a druid's -- I really do. It's one of the druid's defining features. I have no problem with the idea that the ranger's pet has to be weaker than the druid's. But here's the thing: because the ranger's pet improved so slowly, the class feature scaled horribly. What I mean is that while it starts out as a pretty neat feature,* its real value in game terms rapidly approaches zero as the ranger levels up. That's just bad game design, plain and simple.

[* Some might argue even this point. I feel, however, that a 2HD companion at 4th level is pretty cool. Goes downhill real quickly from there, though.]

Pathfinder made a minor change to the way this works. Now, the ranger's "effective druid level" is equal to his ranger level minus 3 (rather than times 0.5, as before). The pet is still weaker than a druid's, but that simple change now allows the feature to scale infinitely better than in 3.5. I can see a ranger's pet remaining viable, as a speed bump/body guard if nothing else, all the way into the higher levels. That's good game design.

My praise for the Pathfinder RPG is not, however, unlimited. I have a few issues, most of which are pretty minor.

• Some of the problems (as I saw them) from 3.5 survive fully intact in PRG. The first example I noticed was in two-weapon fighting (that's "dual wielding" to you MMO players). I've done a lot of math on this subject, and I've convinced myself that two-weapon fighting was essentially broken in 3.5. It is completely unchanged in PRG. On the other hand, I've never seen much complaining on this subject, so maybe it's just me.
• I'm not completely crazy about every change PRG made to 3.5. I don't think Jump should have been lumped into Acrobatics. I miss synergy bonuses. I'm not entirely sold on the way Pathfinder handles "favored classes" and the removal of all multi-classing experience penalties.
• This point is still very much a "first impression," but I'm not wild about some changes to feats in particular (or some of the new feats). Combat Expertise had its effectiveness eviscerated, it seems to me, and I don't understand why -- it didn't seem overpowered to begin with. On the other hand, the new feat Catch Off Guard seems way too powerful (think sneak attack).
• I'm not convinced that I'm completely getting the Combat Maneuver rules (this is the one major addition to the way combat works in the game). I think I would have benefitted from a little more depth in that section of the rule book, such as some discussion of how specific feats (e.g. Combat Finesse) interact with the combat maneuver roll. Some more time spent with the material might drive it home for me -- again, this is something that could just be me.

Overall, though, I want to stress that I couldn't be much happier about Pathfinder. I'm delighted the game simply exists, given the direction that Wizards has taken its parent. I feel, without reservation, that the game is a big improvement over 3.5, which I was pretty happy with anyway.

BGG math trade goodness

I'm a regular participant in math trades on BoardGameGeek. More often than not, my submissions go untraded. Last week, though, a trade closed and I had two successful trades. I got the first of the two incoming packages in the mail this afternoon.

I picked up two small games, Sergeants! On the Eastern Front and Battle for Hill 218, for one game that I had absolutely zero interest in. (Incidentally, it was a game that I'd gotten in a previous math trade; I have no idea why I put it on a want list).

Sergeants! is an introductory-level hex-and-counter game on a tactical scale, pitting Germans against Russians in WWII (as is probably obvious from the title). I've heard reasonably good things about it, but, frankly, it will probably end up on the shelf for a while.

Hill 218 is a card game. I've heard very good things about this one as well, and I've been looking for a nice self-contained (i.e., not collectible) card game for a while. I've got high hopes for this one, and I hope to get it to the table soon.

I'd call this a decent, but certainly not spectacular, trade for me. The games I got were pretty small, and I'm only marginally interested in one of the two, but my subjective valuation of the game I traded away was pretty close to zero. So if I end up getting any play at all out of Hill 218, I definitely will have come out ahead.

Great mounds of unpainted lead (and plastic, and resin)

Owing mainly to the slowness of my painting, as I mentioned in my first post, I have a ton of unpainted miniatures lying around my desk. A quick rundown, in no particular order:

• For Flames of War, five Russian T-34/76s. When finished, these will join my FoW army as my 17th through 21st tanks, bringing me up to a full-strength battalion. Status: Assembled and primed; one of them is base coated. [Edit: I finished these on 10/26/09!]
  
• Also for FoW, a whole bunch of Germans. I'm working on a panzergrenadierkompanie as my second army for that game. I've got two platoons of panzergrenadiers, some mortar halftracks, and (the big boys) a platoon of Panthers. Status: Yikes. I have barely started on these guys and thus have a ton left to do on them. I've assembled and primed one 'track and one Panther -- and everything else is basically untouched.
• Rounding out my FoW stuff, I have a US rifle company that I'll get to someday. Status: Untouched.
• I kind of went nuts for Uncharted Seas when it first came out and bought the starter fleets for all of the original four factions. I got the Iron Dwarves finished pretty quickly after I got them -- those are very easy minis to paint. I have since given my Imperial Human fleet to a friend. That leaves me with Dragon Lords and Orc Raiders to do. And I really want to get them done -- they're awesome miniatures -- but they can't ever seem to work their way up to the top of the pile for some reason. Status: I've done a little bit of cleaning on them, but they're mostly untouched, honestly.
• Of all the minis games I'm familiar with, I probably like the Warmachine rules the best of the bunch. I have a Khador starter box painted, and a whole bunch of other Khador stuff (mostly 'jacks) to do. Again, this is something I'd really like to get done -- both the Khador stuff I already have and maybe a second army (probably something from the Hordes side of the street). Status: Aside from the starter box, most of the other 'jacks are assembled and primed. Like the Uncharted Seas stuff, they can't seem to work their way up to the top of the heap.
• I'm a big fan of the "giant fightin' robot" genre, but unfortunately Battletech just doesn't do it for me as a game. This past spring, I thought I'd give Heavy Gear a try, because their stuff looks so nice on their website (and they were having a sale). I picked up a couple of boxes of minis along with the rule book. Seems like an interesting game, but I have some major reservations about it (including issues with availability, price, and scale). I may make a full-fledged post about it at some point. Status: Untouched. I want to get these done someday, but this is not a high priority at the moment.
• I don't even know where to start talking about the Games Workshop branch(es) of the hobby. For purposes of this little list, suffice it to say that I'm neither a hater nor a fanboy. Again, I'm sure I'll have much more to say on that whole subject later. For now, I'll just mention that I have a pretty big Warhammer Fantasy Battles Lizardman army hanging over my head like the Sword of freaking Damocles. I bought them (like new) from a friend a couple of years ago for a really good price. Status: Almost entirely still on the sprue, but I've painted up a handful of Sauruses, mainly to test my colors.
• I recently fell pretty hard for Federation Commander (having sworn off Star Fleet Battles long ago). I'd love to do a bunch of minis for this. Right now I only have a few Federation ships (the original Franz Joseph designs -- 'cause that's how I roll). Status: Assembled (easier said than done) and base coated. Given the nature of these models (and my intentions for them), that really means they're mostly finished.
• I guess I bought into/fell for the hype. I picked up a copy of the new Space Hulk a few weeks ago. I'm simultaneously very excited and very intimidated by this one. I don't quite know how to handle it. A seriously good paint job, one on the level that the sculpts demand/deserve, is simply beyond my capabilities. Dipping is something I'm very seriously considering, but it's going to take a while to build up the nerve to actually try it.

And ... that's about it. Compiling this has been reasonably depressing, as I'd say I don't have enough natural lifespan left to finish the stuff I've got waiting on me. I really, really, really need to bear down and start making some progress on these guys.

Anyway, I have so many minis in hand, that there's no way I could be considering getting into yet another big project, right? No chance of dropping another big chunk of cash on yet another big pile of unpainted plastic to sit on my desk and taunt me for months, right? I mean, right?

Well hello there

I am on the internet.

After thinking about it for a few days, I have decided that I am precisely narcissistic enough to start blogging about my gaming interests and activities. I have no illusions that people are going to actually read this -- and I'm not even entirely sure I want anyone to.

I'm doing it anyway, though.

A little about me: I'm a 40-something dude living a pretty nice life in the USA. I've got a great wife and a great kid (pre-schooler). I've spent a lot of years in school and had a lot of different jobs (including some military time), but right now, for various reasons, I'm a full-time stay-at-home dad.

And, I'm a gamer. I'd call myself "avid," and I guess I am, but the reality is that I spend more time thinking about games and reading about games than I spend actually playing games. This blog is something of an outgrowth of that fact -- i.e., another way for me to think about games.

"But what games, Greywing?" I can almost hear the throngs demanding. Well, you imaginary throngs are being pretty cheeky to start demanding stuff midway through my first post. But, anyway, here's a brief synopsis of my current (and past) top interests:

Computer games: I never was much interested in "video" games, but PC games -- now that's a different story. In fact, for years and years, that was my number-one hobby. I mainly went for strategy titles. My favorites include the usual suspects: Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic. My all-time favorite is probably X-Com (sweet, sweet X-Com).

I also have/had a soft spot in my heart for RPG's, going back to SSI's "gold box" D&D games. So, I was a natural target for the MMO scene. I started playing EverQuest in 1999 and it sort of swallowed my leisure time whole for the next six or seven years. I dabbled with City of Heroes and (of course) WoW, but no game ever grabbed me the way EQ did (there's no time like the first time).

I got over it though. I've been clean of MMO's for months. Not saying I'll never play again, but I'm honestly not interested in that kind of thing right now. Beyond that, in general, I just don't spend too much time with the computer these days; I've been much more focused on real-space gaming for the past few years. And that brings me to:

Miniature games: This category is probably my top interest at the moment. I am hampered in this pursuit, however, by the fact that I just don't enjoy painting all that much. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "necessary evil" -- I like it, I guess, I just wish I liked it more. I love having miniatures that I've painted, but I don't love the process of getting there, if that makes any sense. Plus, I'm not very good at it. I have a basic grasp of and use three techniques: base coating, dry brushing, and washing. That's pretty much it. And, to top it off, I'm amazingly slow at it.

To recap:

• Not crazy about doing it;
• Not very good at it;
• Extremely slow.

But, still: I love my little soldiers/tanks/anthropomorphic dinosaurs/etc.

I know I'll talk a lot more about this stuff in later posts, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Role-playing games: I've been playing D&D since I was about 9. (That was the '70s, kids!) I loved 3.5. I ... do not love 4th Edition. I remain pretty bummed about that whole thing.

But! All is not lost. I feel roughly the same about Pathfinder as little girls feel about unicorns. I'm lucky to be in a solid group with a standing Pathfinder Society game every other week. We've also recently revived a very long-running Mutants & Masterminds campaign that had been dormant for a couple of years. More on both of those things later.

Board games: Yeah, I do these too. I stumbled upon Board Game Geek about a year and a half ago, and it has cost me a lot of money since then. I'm not too much of a Euro fan, but I do enjoy hex-and-counter war games and that category known as "Ameritrash" -- a term I loathe and will not use here again. Of all the gaming categories I've mentioned, this is the one I'd most like to be able to spend more time with.

So, anyway, that's me in a very tiny nutshell. This is way longer than I intended, and I'm running out of steam for now. More later. Or maybe not! Probably. But we'll see.